Prima Facie responses to cessationism

These are not full orbed refutations.  They merely lay out a few difficult points:

1. There is no text saying "the canon is complete; therefore, the word-signs have ceased."  It simply doesn't exist.
   
   1a.  There is no text mentioning a completed NT canon (for the record, I affirm a functionally finished canon).
2. Word-signs happen today, whether one's theory allows for it.

Pouring Holy Water on Strange Fire (Review)

Viola, Frank.  Pouring Holy Water on Strange Fire.  e-book.

Key points (and rebuttals that obtain)

Opening Salvo

*True, Charismatics sometimes put the Holy Spirit on the throne, but do not Reformed have their own pet doctrines (covenant theology, amillennialism, “THE” Christian view of apologetics, etc; Viola 13).

**Viola notes Macarthur paints the entire Charismatic world with one brush.  This makes any sort of dialogue (which anticipates correction) impossible.  But no one would accept reducing the entirety of the Reformed faith to Rushdoony, North, James Jordan, and Doug Phillips.

***Macarthur does cherry pick from the church fathers. (I noticed this when I read Strange Fire. I didn’t mention it because it only entailed bad historical scholarship, not a counter-refutation).  He notes where Chrysostom seems to say the gifts ceased, but he failed to quote Martin of Tours biography NPNPF 2 volume 11).

****Macarthur advanced the bizarre claim that charismatics teach the gifts ceased at the 1st century to be rediscovered in the 20th.  Yet, as Viola points out, he never tells us which charismatics taught this.  And Jack Deere specifically contradicted this (Surprised by the Voice of God).

*****In other words, Macarthur’s book is one large fallacy of composition.

Did the Gifts Cease?

Viola begins with what is probably the continuationist’s strongest position:   there is no verse in the New Testament that suggests that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit have ceased or will pass away before Christ's second coming” (Viola 18).  He points out that the clause “when the perfect comes” means the Bible simply negates all the other gifts as well.

Concerning the post-apostolic witness, Viola backs the truck up and buries the Strange Fire narrative (23).

Viola has an excellent section on Ephesians 2:20, which I beleive is the only real proof text the cessationist has.  Quoting Storms, we see that the prophets and apostles form the foundation, yes, but vv. 21-22 note the superstructure of the church is still under construction.  Let’s not push the metaphor beyond what Paul intended.  Further, we have no evidence that all prophetic activity (say, Phillip’s daughters) is necessarily laying the foundation of the church.  

Scriptures and the Spirit

Are Charismatics weak on the Scriptures?  Well, it depends of whom you are speaking?  Given Macarthur’s pattern of selective sources, it would appear so.  But notice he never references (with a few exceptions, like to Grudem and Piper) those who are might in the Scriptures.  Viola lists some names:  

N.T. Wright, Craig Keener, Sam Storms, Gordon Fee, Jack Deere, Bernard Ramm, John Piper, Michael Green, James D.G. Dunn, Howard Snyder, Wayne Grudem, Russell P. Spittler, J. Rodman Williams” (Viola 27).  I can only add my late uncle to the list, an Assembly of God minister who read the Bible cover-to-cover at least four times every year (multiply by 30 years as a conservative estimate, and you get a 120 readings--JBA).  

Viola again:  Point: Bizarre, exaggerated, misguided claims about spiritual gifts, failed healings, and trickery under the guise of the Holy Spirit's power do not disprove the reality of spiritual gifts” (31).  But according to Macarthur’s logic, that’s exactly what happens.

Revelation Misunderstood

Prophetic utterances are equal in truth (the Same Spirit) but not equal in authority to Scripture.

Viola:  

Using MacArthur's reasoning, there is no need to use judgment or spiritual discernment in testing revelation. If the gift of prophecy has ceased, then one can simply dismiss all claims of prophetic revelation, healing, or miracles without investigation or critical analysis. Simple enough. But is it accurate? Is it biblical? Paul says we prophesy in part, but he also says we know in part (1 Cor. 13:9). So teaching, like prophecy, must be evaluated. Using MacArthur’s reasoning, we should reject all teaching, since so much modern teaching is inaccurate (40).

Third Wave:

Some good points here.  Viola notes that Wimber simply “put wheels on” George Ladd’s kingdom theology (48).  I don’t think this explosive point has yet been truly explored.  With the exception of dispensationalists, every school of eschatology holds to already/not yet.  This means the kingdom has been fulfilled (if not consummated).  Therefore, we cast out demons. Any takers?

I also appreciated his links to Deere’s response to the Briefing.  I thought Macarthur was rather hamhanded in his criticism of Deere.  

Further, the Bible must be spiritually discerned.  Yet the Bible itself is not the spiritual discernment.  So if we say the “Bible is sufficient” (which I believe it is), we need to qualify what we mean by that.

Criticisms of Viola:

~This is more of an article length critique, not a book.  It’s not worth the $5.99.  Granted, Strange Fire isn’t that good, either, but I do fear Viola met Macarthur on Macarthur’s (non)scholarly level.

~Each paragraph is one or two sentences long.  This isn’t the worst criticism in the world, but it’s worth noting.

Evaluation:

I don’t this is a full-orbed rebuttal to strange fire.  It can serve as suppressing fire until heavier resources (Grudem, Storms) are deployed.

On the non-review of Strange Fire

I posted a long review of Strange Fire (Macarthur) at Goodreads.  I might post it here later.  One of the problems is that any discussion of Strange Fire will immediately focus on whether continuing prophecy violates sola scriptura.  That's frustrating because that is not relevant to Macarthur's thesis.  It sounds odd, doesn't it?  Macarthur's thesis is that it is wrong to elevate experience over doctrine (Macarthur 17).  Fair enough. That is completely independent of whether prophecy continues today.

Therefore, if the discussion of strange fire collapses into that, we've really missed the larger point of the book.  But that might not be a bad thing.  The book had interesting moments, but whenever Macarthur had the chance to advance interesting discussion, he derailed himself to attack Benny Hinn.  I don't mind that.  Hinn is a truly diabolical individual.  But attacking Hinn when you should be finishing a discussion on more substantial points is irresponsible.  And the average reader of Strange Fire is not a lay pentecostal.  It is a more or less Reformed continuationist like me.

So what did not Macarthur deal with?

Demon possession:  Does demon possession happen today?  It's hard to find any conservative evangelical (Or Catholic or Orthodox) who denies this?  If you think it happens today, then the obvious question is whether Christians have the power to cast out demons.  Again, it is counter-intuitive to deny that Christians have this power today.

So let's reverse one of Macarthur's original arguments.  In his chapter on apostles--which I mostly agreed with--he argued that if the office of apostle died away, then it is possible that other "super" gifts died away.  Okay, let's take that line of argument and return it:  if it is possible that the gift of casting out demons is still operative, then perhaps other gifts are operative.

Is this a good argument? Of course not, but it is a perfect rebuttal to Macarthur's argument.

And on a more practical note.

Are God-Nudges Propositional?

The most common (and probably substantial) objection to continuing spiritual gifts is that if prophecy is true, it undercuts sola scriptura and the finished canon.  We will pretend that is a good argument for the moment, but it made me wonder.  Even the most ardent cessationist will pray that God give him guidance in a specific event.  Let's say the prayer is something like, "Oh God, please give me guidance."

Here is my question:  How exactly will you know that God answered that prayer?  Will he give you a gentle nudge in the right direction?  That could work, but it seems vague.  It seems the cessationist has to say that "gentle nudges" don't threaten the sufficiency of Scripture (which seems odd, since if Scripture were sufficient on the above gloss [I do hold to the sufficiency of Scripture] you wouldn't need to ask God), but if the nudges are put in propositional form by God then God is threatening the sufficiency of Scripture.

Holy Fire, Not Strange, chapters 1-4

Chapter 1 is simply a string of recycled sermon notes on how silly and evil various brands of charismania are.  Okay, but anyone can play this game.  I agree there are hucksters and there is a special place in hell for them, but this is not an argument.  Macarthur does actually get to something like an argument:

Thesis:  "It is the elevation of experience over the authority of Scripture that grieves and demeans the Holy Spirit most of all" (Macarthur 17).

I have several observations:   1) it is dangerous to elevate experience over theology, but where is the proof that it grieves the Holy Spirit most of all?  How does Macarthur know this?  The Scriptures he cites are about the Holy Spirit's inspiring the Word and the Spirit's testifying to Christ.  Great, but that is immaterial to this thesis.  Indeed, is this not Macarthur's own experience?

2) If this is Macarthur's thesis, and if he is successful in proving it (I don't think he can be), then we should note that the truth of continuationism stands or falls independent of this thesis.

Chapter 2

This is a history of the modern Pentecostal movement and most of it, while interesting, is irrelevant to his thesis.  Except for one part:

But here is the point to all of this history:  if the Holy Spirit intended to recreate the day of Pentecost, is this really how he would do it? (27)

I really don't know what to say.  I suppose some early Pentecostals said something like this.  Sam Storms specifically argued against this point.  See Point 9.  Macarthur continues,

Why focus on these two men [Charles Parham and E. W. Kenyon]?  The answer is simple.  These two men are responsible for the theological foundations upon which the entire charismatic system is built (31)

At this point I have no idea if this historiography is true. I am not persuaded that one can make a 1:1 connection between the early Pentecostals and Wayne Grudem.   Genealogical arguments are always dangerous to make and they rarely deliver on their promises.

Chapter 3

In chapters 3 and 4 JM relies on Edwards’ analysis of revival, and I think it is a good–if incomplete–analysis of any “spiritual” movement.

1. Does the work exalt the true Christ?
2. Does it oppose worldliness?
3. Does it point people to the Scriptures?
4. Does it elevate the truth?
5. Does it produce love for God and others?

I've dealt with the specifics here.   It really is a good chapter.  He notes (rightly) that the Spirit testifies of Christ, so those who are filled with the Spirit will testify of Christ.  Sadly, this is absent from a large part of the Charismatic world.

I do find it interesting, though, that Macarthur didn't clinch his argument with Revelation 19:10, "The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy."  In fact, the book doesn't mention this verse at all.

Chapter 4, same contd.

Most of this chapter reads like the tabloids.  Interesting, mind you, but not really germane to the thesis, except where noted above.

Cessationism's missing premise

This post is not arguing that cessationism is wrong.  I am simply looking at one of it's arguments. Cessationists use "revelation" in an equivocal sense.  This is a problem when we examine practices in the 1st century church.  Paul tells the church to prophesy (and one can find numerous other examples).  How does the cessationist respond?

First, let's look at the argument:

1: God's speaking is what constitutes revelation, and revelation was eventually codified in the canon.

 This seems to entail the following:

2: The canon is closed (let's leave aside messy issues like who had the authority to close the canon and how do you know).

I think Ephesians 2:20 affords the cessationist another premise:

3.  The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.  Assuming apostles means those associated in one way or another with Jesus's ministry, I think we can safely affirm (and this would be the position of many continuationists) that apostles aren't around today.  Therefore,

3.1.  Prophets aren't around, either.

The Continuationist Responds,

Is (P1) true?  I agree with the first half if it is phrased like this:  God reveals himself and this usually happens by speech or in words (whether internal or external).  The second half of P1 is unproven.

What about P2?  Practically, we have to assume that the canon is closed, but we have no evidence from God that it is.  Honestly, how do you know the canon is closed?  I think wiser Protestants were right to say that the Canon is "a fallible collection of infallible books" and leave it at that.

As to P3, my question is:  are all acts of "prophesying" in the New Testament establishing the foundation of the church?  Are Phillip's daughters part of that foundation?  When Paul acknowledges different men are prophesying is that, too, part of the foundation?  Maybe, but we have no evidence that such is what Paul meant.

The only way the cessationist can salvage this position is to add another premise:

P4:  Paul's command to prophesy only functioned until the canon was closed.

The main problem with that statement is there isn't a single verse that says that.

Old Thoughts on Strange Fire

I haven't read the entirety of Strange Fire yet.  I plan on it.  But since most of the uproar dealt not with the book but with the Conference (and with Driscoll's crashing the conference.  LOL!), I will go off conference notes.

Let it be said that I am not a card-carrying charismatic.   I simply do not identify with that group.  Truth be told, I am probably closer in sympathy with the Conference men than I am with charismatics of any stripe.

Most cessationists do not realize it, but there are multiple levels of this position.  The most common position is “I believe that was apostolic stuff and ended there, but hey, who knows what God can do today?”  They usually mean–and only mean–miraculous happenings.   With respect to miracles, it’s a fair line.  However, they cannot logically extend that position to prophecy.  The other shade of cessationism says that such happenings are impossible.

Given that there are various shades of cessationism there are also various shades of continuationism.    For sake of ease, I am leaving out the Word-of-Faith movement.  They are false prophets and rarely offer any biblical rationale for their doings. I am dealing with the serious continuationists:  Wayne Grudem, Sam Storms, John Piper, and to a much lesser degree, Mark Driscoll.

I see a problem in identification on the cessationist side.   Originally, Macarthur attacked the Word-of-Faith types (Charismatic Chaos) and we welcomed it.  This conference seems (I say seem because I feel like the goal post shifted) aimed at the recent “Young, Restless, and Reformed” Crowd.  So I need to ask the cessationists of Strange Fire, “Against whom are you arguing?”   You cannot say, “We are responding to a recent phenomena in Evangelical Calvinism” and then preach against witch-doctors.

(Tim Challies has done a fair job in summarizing the conference.  I will be relying on his posts.  I realize that cannot count for a refutation of the hard cessationist line.  Fair enough).

Macarthur begins by urging his continuationist friends that he is not being unloving.  Okay.  I can buy that.  Since I am actually dealing with specific arguments, I will by-pass much of it.  However, he writes,

There is error in this movement all the way through it. 90% of the movement believe in the prosperity gospel. 24 to 25 million of these people deny the Trinity. 100 million in the movement are Roman Catholic.

Again, against whom are we arguing?  It is manifestly unfair to lump Storms and Grudem into this group simply because they agree on a few points..  Cessationists need to do a better job on this point or many people will simply start ignoring them.   My underlying counter-thesis is this:  Refute Wayne Grudem’s The Gift of Prophecy.   Sub-thesis:  Answer this question, “Would you include your hero, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones into the above group, since he was a continuationist?  Why or why not?”

MacArthur’s 8 Statements:

1.  When theologically conservative men give credibility to this movement the whole movement gains credibility

Answer:  Papists use the same line against the Reformers.

2.  God gave special revelatory gifts, signs and miracles to validate His revelation. Hebrews 2:3 expounds on this.

Answer:  Hebrews 2:3 says nothing about whether these gifts continue or not.  Grudem and Piper specifically admit that the gifts validated the word.   That says nothing about whether they should be permanent or temporary.

3.  Point (3) is purely anecdotal and borderline bizarre.

4.  Continuationists who insist that God gives special revelation today gives way to people being led by confusion and error.

Answer:  We are using the term “revelation” in different ways. Again, I have Grudem’s thesis in mind, none other.

5.  Continuationists tacitly deny the reformed tenet of Sola Scriptura.

Answer:  Again, see above.   Further, we need to be clear on what we mean by “canon.”  The Canon, as Bruce Metzger, Sproul, and others have pointed out, is a fallible collection of infallible books.  I do not believe the church canon should receive other books, but if we admit to the “fallibilist” definition, as we must, then technically the claim to extra revelation (which is not what Grudem is claiming) doesn’t contradict the canon.   If you don’t hold to the fallibilist definition, then there really isn’t any response you can offer to the Eastern Orthodox.  In fact, they will eat you alive.  

And while we're at it, let's define sola scriptura:  Scripture is the norm that norms our norms.  This is the classical definition.  It acknowledges Scripture as the highest authority but also subordinate authorities.  So how does a "Word of wisdom" contradict this?  We are given no argument.

6.  This point deals specifically with tongue-speaking, which is not my interest. 

7.  Continuationists assert the gift of healing and in turn affirm the fraudulent ministry of healers. 

Answer:  The consequent does not follow the antecedent.   The fraud healers should receive the death penalty in a godly society, but that doesn’t mean the gift of healing expired.  Notice that MacArthur is not using a biblical argument. 

8.  Continuationists distract from the Holy Spirit’s true ministry by enticing people to buy into a false ministry

Answer: Again, it depends on whom he is speaking.

A rebuttal to the Macarthurites

These are observations about claims Mac and Co. make.   They are not intended as a point-by-point analysis of Strange Fire.  That will come in due time, Lord willing.  My goal here is to protect John MacArthur’s admitted hero Martyn Lloyd-Jones from John Macarthur.

In chapters 3 and 4 JM relies on Edwards’ analysis of revival, and I think it is a good–if incomplete–analysis of any “spiritual” movement.

1. Does the work exalt the true Christ?
2. Does it oppose worldliness?
3. Does it point people to the Scriptures?
4. Does it elevate the truth?
5. Does it produce love for God and others?

It is a good list.  However, I would say with the apostle Paul, “I would that you all prophesy.”  But back to the points above.  The logical danger with rhetorical questions is that if the opposition can bite the bullet and the position is logically unchanged, your entire argument, such that it is, evaporates.

Case study:  Wayne Grudem.

No one can accuse Wayne Grudem of not exalting Christ.  I don’t know him personally, though we did exchange friendly emails some months ago, but I highly doubt he is worldly.  Does he point people to the Scriptures?  Seriously?  As an inerrantist, I am certain Grudem can affirm 3 and 4.  5 is a given.

How would a Word-Faither do?  That’s a fair question, but if you lump Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms in the same camp with Copeland and Hinn, you are sinning against your brothers and violating the 9th commandment.  Only a party spirit can remain untouched by such a rebuke.

The Missing Case of Martyn Lloyd-Jones

A search engine on Strange Fire lists only seven appearances of Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

p.44 lists MLJ saying that the Spirit exalts Christ.  Presumably this is a slam against much of charismatic worship.  Fair enough.  (I do wonder if the Spirit wants us to worship like Dutch-American amillennialists).

p.261 has MLJ saying the office of prophet has ceased.  Okay, he said that.  He also said other things, and in any case I don’t think that exegesis stands up to Grudem’s scholarship.

p.117-118 say basically the same thing.

p.312 lists MLJ’s Christian Unity.

p.319 is the index.

p.281 is an endnote for Great Doctrines of the Bible.

And that’s it for MLJ.  So what’s the big deal?  Well, here is what Macarthur has to say about Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

He influenced countless preachers (myself included), and he stood steadfastly against the superficial, entertainment-oriented approach to preaching that seemed to dominate the evangelical world then as it does now. Lloyd-Jones still desperately needs to be heard today.

Again, you might ask, “What’s the big deal?  Anybody should say that about MLJ.”Macarthur elsewhere says,

There is a stream of sound teaching, sound doctrine, sound theology that runs all the way back to the apostles.  It runs through Athanasius and Augustine…and runs through the pathway of Charles Spurgeon, and David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and it keeps running.

Real quick side note: I wish quasi-Reformed people would stop referencing Augustine.  Let's be honest. You don't know what he teaches.  He isn't an easy writer and his work isn't systematic.  You have to spend about half a decade working through different treatises to get an idea of what he is saying.  And to make matters worse, he believed that miracles happen today.   Read City of God, Book 22, chapter 8.  This is embarrassing.  

Well, here is the problem.  Macarthur does not allow (de facto) the distinction between continuationism (myself) and charismaticism (insert favorite bad guy).  He notes

Number seven, by asserting the gift of healing has continued to be present, the continuationist position affirms the same basic premise that undergirds the fraudulent ministry of charismatic faith healers.  If you say the gift of healing is still around, and you say it whimsically, there’s no evidence it’s around, either experimentally or biblically, but if you say it’s still around, then you have just validated healers.

Who would want to do that?  Are they not the lowest of the low?  Are they not the worst of the worst?  They don’t go to hospitals.  They prey on the most desperate, the most severely ill, the most hopeless, the most destitute, very often the poorest, telling them lies and getting rich.  Who would want to do anything to aid and abet them?

Said another way:

Premise 1: If continuationists assert “the miraculous,” then they validate faith healers.
Premise 2: They assert the miraculous.
(3)Conclusion: They validate faith healers (Modus Ponens)

Prem. (4): Faith healers are the lowest of the low (agreed)
Prem. (5): If anyone validates them, they, too are the lowest of the low [4, 1]

(6) If person A asserts the miraculous, then he, too, validates faith healers [2, 5]

Of course, I challenge premises 1 and 3.  Someone could still say, “Yeah, so.  You are the lowest of the low because you believe in the miraculous.”  Fair enough.  I will now lower the boom.

Lloyd-Jones states,

Those people who say that [baptism with the Holy Spirit] happens to everybody at regeneration seem to me not only to be denying the New Testament but to be definitely quenching the Spirit” (Joy Unspeakable, p. 141).

“If the apostles were incapable of being true witnesses without unusual power, who are we to claim that we can be witnesses without such power?” (The Sovereign Spirit, p. 46.)

I think it is quite without scriptural warrant to say that all these gifts ended with the apostles or the Apostolic Era. I believe there have been undoubted miracles since then (Joy Unspeakable, p. 246.)

Was it only meant to be true of the early church? … The Scriptures never anywhere say that these things were only temporary—never! There is no such statement anywhere (The Sovereign Spirit, pp. 31-32.)
“To hold such a view,” he says, “is simply to quench the Spirit” (The Sovereign Spirit, p. 46)

Premise (7) Martyn Lloyd-Jones asserts the miraculous.

Now the Strange Fire Brigade faces a painful difficulty:  reject (1)–(6) or accept Premise (8)

(8) Martyn Lloyd-Jones validates faith-healers.  [6, 7 MP]

Conclusion

Someone could still respond, “Well, MLJ is not God. He isn’t right on everything.”  No he isn’t.  He is an amillennialist, for one.  But let’s go back to Macarthur’s claim: “anyone holding these views gives credence to faith healers and is the lowest of the low.”  He must apply that to MLJ.  The logic is impeccable (up to a point, anyway).

In analytic philosophy we call this a “defeater.”  It shows his position is either counter to the evidence or it cannot be held simultaneously with the evidence. Either his view of Martyn Lloyd-Jones is wrong and it has to be abandoned (as the evidence makes abundantly clear), or he must give the defeater to his claim that continuationists validate faith healers.

He will do neither.

His position collapses